CENIDO v.

SPOUSES APACIONADO
GR No. 132474, November 19, 1999
PONENTE: PUNO, J.
FACTS:
On May 22, 1989, respondent spouses filed with the RTC Rizal a complaint against petitioner
Renato Cenido for Declaration of Ownership, Nullity, with Damages. The spouses alleged that
they are the owners of a parcel of unregistered land, 123 square meters located at Binangonan,
Rizal. The house and lot were purchased by the spouses from its previous owner, Bonifacio
Aparato, now deceased, who lived under the spouses' care and protection prior to his death.
While he was alive, Aparato mortgaged the said property twice, one to the Rural Bank of
Binangonan and the other to Linda C. Ynares, as security for loans obtained by him. Said loans
were paid off by the spouses thereby securing the release and cancellation of said mortgages.
And from then on, they have been in open, public, continuous and uninterrupted possession of
the property in the concept of owners. On January 7, 1987, petitioner Renato Cenido, claiming
to be the owner of the subject house and lot, filed a complaint for ejectment against them and
through fraudulent and unauthorized means, Cenido was able to cause the issuance in his name
of a tax declaration over the subject property, which fact the spouses learned only upon the filing
of the ejectment case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of the real property should be in writing for it to be enforceable.

RULING:
The sale of real property should be in writing and subscribed by the party charged for it to be
enforceable. The "Pagpapatunay" is in writing and subscribed by Bonifacio Aparato, the vendor.
Hence, it is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Not having been subscribed and sworn to
before a notary public, however, the "Pagpapatunay" is not a public document, and therefore
does not comply with Article 1358, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. The requirement of a public
document in Article 1358 is not for the validity of the instrument but for its efficacy. Although a
conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such
conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public
instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy, so that after the
existence of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the
proper document. On the other hand, the Real Property Tax Code provides that real property
tax be assessed in the name of the person "owning or administering" the property on which the
tax is levied. Since petitioner Cenido has not proven any successional or administrative rights to
Bonifacio's estate, Tax Declaration No. 02-6368 in Cenido's name must be declared null and
void. Hence, the petition is denied.